The Grammar of English Grammars, Goold Brown [ebook reader for manga txt] 📗

of two syllables and of three. Latinists sometimes make feet of four syllables, and admit sixteen more of these, acknowledging and naming twenty-eight in all. The principal English feet are the Iambus, the Trochee, the Anapest, and the Dactyl.

1. The Iambus, or Iamb, is a poetic foot consisting of a short syllable and a long one; as, b~etr=ay, c~onf=ess, d~em=and, ~intent, d~egr=ee.

2. The Trochee, or Choree, is a poetic foot consisting of a long syllable and a short one; as, h=atef~ul, p=ett~ish, l=eg~al, m=eas~ure, h=ol~y.

3. The Anapest is a poetic foot consisting of two short syllables and one long one; as, c~ontr~av=ene, ~acqu~i=esce, ~imp~ort=une.

4. The Dactyl is a poetic foot consisting of one long syllable and two short ones; as, l=ab~our~er, p=oss~ibl~e, w=ond~erf~ul.

These are our principal feet, not only because they are oftenest used, but because each kind, with little or no mixture, forms a distinct order of numbers, having a peculiar rhythm. Of verse, or poetic measure, we have, accordingly, four principal kinds, or orders; namely, Iambic, Trochaic, Anapestic, and Dactylic; as in the four lines cited above.

The more pure these several kinds are preserved, the more exact and complete is the chime of the verse. But exactness being difficult, and its sameness sometimes irksome, the poets generally indulge some variety; not so much, however, as to confound the drift of the rhythmical pulsations: or, if ever these be not made obvious to the reader, there is a grave fault in the versification.

The secondary feet, if admitted at all, are to be admitted only, or chiefly, as occasional diversifications. Of this class of feet, many grammarians adopt four; but they lack agreement about the selection. Brightland took the Spondee, the Pyrrhic, the Moloss, and the Tribrach. To these, some now add the other four; namely, the Amphibrach, the Amphimac, the Bacchy, and the Antibacchy.

Few, if any, of these feet are really necessary to a sufficient explanation of English verse; and the adopting of so many is liable to the great objection, that we thereby produce different modes of measuring the same lines. But, by naming them all, we avoid the difficulty of selecting the most important; and it is proper that the student should know the import of all these prosodical terms.

5. A Spondee is a poetic foot consisting of two long syllables; as, c=old n=ight, p=o=or s=ouls, ~am~en, shr=ovet=ide.

6. A Pyrrhic is a poetic foot consisting of two short syllables; as, presumpt-|~uo~us, perpet-|~u~al, unhap-|p~il~y, inglo-|r~io~us.

7. A Moloss is a poetic foot consisting of three long syllables; as, De~ath's p=ale h=orse,—gre=at wh=ite thr=one,—d=eep d=amp v=a=ult.

8. A Tribrach is a poetic foot consisting of three short syllables; as, prohib-|~it~or~y, unnat-|~ur~all~y, author-|~it~at~ive, innum-|~er~abl~e.

9. An Amphibrach is a poetic foot of three syllables, having both sides short, the middle long; as, ~impr=ud~ent, c~ons=id~er, tr~ansp=ort~ed.

10. An Amphimac, Amphimacer, or Cretic, is a poetic foot of three syllables, having both sides long, the middle short; as, w~ind~ingsh=eet, l=ife-~est=ate, s=oul-d~is~eased.

11. A Bacchy is a poetic foot consisting of one short syllable and two long ones; as, th=e wh=ole w~orld,—~a gre=at v=ase,—=of p=ure g=old.

12. An Antibacchy, or Hypobacchy, is a poetic foot consisting of two long syllables and a short one; as, kn=ight-s=erv~ice, gl=obe-d=ais~y, gr=ape-flow~er, g=old-b=eat~er.

Among the variegations of verse, one emphatic syllable is sometimes counted for a foot. "When a single syllable is [thus] taken by itself, it is called a Cæsura, which is commonly a long syllable." [499]

FOR EXAMPLE:—

   "Keeping | time, | time, | time,
    In a | sort of | Runic | rhyme,
    To the | tintin| -nabu| -lation that so | musi| -cally | wells
    From the | bells, | bells, | bells, | bells,
    Bells, | bells, | bells."
        —EDGAR A. POE: Union Magazine, for Nov. 1849; Literary World,
          No. 143.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.—In defining our poetic feet, many late grammarians substitute the terms accented and unaccented for long and short, as did Murray, after some of the earlier editions of his grammar; the only feet recognized in his second edition being the Iambus, the Trochee, the Dactyl, and the Anapest, and all these being formed by quantities only. This change has been made on the supposition, that accent and long quantity, as well as their opposites, nonaccent and short quantity, may oppose each other; and that the basis of English verse is not, like that of Latin or Greek poetry, a distinction in the time of syllables, not a difference in quantity, but such a course of accenting and nonaccenting as overrides all relations of this sort, and makes both length and shortness compatible alike with stress or no stress. Such a theory, I am persuaded, is untenable. Great authority, however, may be quoted for it, or for its principal features. Besides the several later grammarians who give it countenance, even "the judicious Walker," who, in his Pronouncing Dictionary, as before cited, very properly suggests a difference between "that quantity which constitutes poetry," and the mere "length or shortness of vowels," when he comes to explain our English accent and quantity, in his "Observations on the Greek and Latin Accent and Quantity," finds "accent perfectly compatible with either long or short quantity;" (Key, p. 312;) repudiates that vulgar accent of Sheridan and others, which "is only a greater force upon one syllable than another;" (Key, p. 313;) prefers the doctrine which "makes the elevation or depression of the voice inseparable from accent;" (Key, p. 314;) holds that, "unaccented vowels are frequently pronounced long when the accented vowels are short;" (Key, p. 312;) takes long or short vowels and long or short syllables to be things everywhere tantamount; saying, "We have no conception of quantity arising from any thing but the nature of the vowels, as they are pronounced long or short;" (ibid.;) and again: "Such long quantity" as consonants may produce with a close or short vowel, "an English ear has not the least idea of. Unless the sound of the vowel be altered, we have not any conception of a long or short syllable."—Walker's Key, p. 322; and Worcester's Octavo Dict., p. 935.

OBS. 2.—In the opinion of Murray, Walker's authority should be thought sufficient to settle any question of prosodial quantities. "But," it is added, "there are some critical writers, who dispute the propriety of his arrangement."—Murray's Octavo Gram., p. 241. And well there may be; not only by reason of the obvious incorrectness of the foregoing positions, but because the great orthoëpist is not entirely consistent with himself. In his "Preparatory Observations," which introduce the very essay above cited, he avers that, "the different states of the voice," which are indicated by the comparative terms high and low, loud and soft, quick and slow, forcible and feeble, "may not improperly be called quantities of sound."—Walker's Key, p. 305. Whoever thinks this, certainly conceives of quantity as arising from several other things than "the nature of the vowels." Even Humphrey, with whom, "Quantity differs materially from time," and who defines it, "the weight, or aggregate quantum of sounds," may find his questionable and unusual "conception" of it included among these.

OBS. 3.—Walker must have seen, as have the generality of prosodists since, that such a distinction as he makes between long syllables and short, could not possibly be the basis of English versification, or determine the elements of English feet; yet, without the analogy of any known usage, and contrary to our customary mode of reading the languages, he proposes it as applicable—and as the only doctrine conceived to be applicable—to Greek or Latin verse. Ignoring all long or short quantity not formed by what are called long or short vowels,[500] he suggests, "as a last refuge," (§25,) the very doubtful scheme of reading Latin and Greek poetry with the vowels conformed, agreeably to this English sense of long and short vowel sounds, to the ancient rules of quantity. Of such words as fallo and ambo, pronounced as we usually utter them, he says, "nothing can be more evident than the long quantity of the final vowel though without the accent, and the short quantity of the initial and accented syllable."—Obs. on Greek and Lat. Accent, §23; Key, p. 331. Now the very reverse of this appears to me to be "evident." The a, indeed, may be close or short, while the o, having its primal or name sound, is called long; but the first syllable, if fully accented, will have twice the time of the second; nor can this proportion be reversed but by changing the accent, and misplacing it on the latter syllable. Were the principle true, which the learned author pronounces so "evident," these, and all similar words, would constitute iambic feet; whereas it is plain, that in English they are trochees; and in Latin,—where "o final is common,"—either trochees or spondees. The word ambo, as every accurate scholar knows, is always a trochee, whether it be the Latin adjective for "both," or the English noun for "a reading desk, or pulpit."

OBS. 4.—The names of our poetic feet are all of them derived, by change of endings, from similar names used in Greek, and thence also in Latin; and, of course, English words and Greek or Latin, so related, are presumed to stand for things somewhat similar. This reasonable presumption is an argument, too often disregarded by late grammarians, for considering our poetic feet to be quantitative, as were the ancient,—not accentual only, as some will have them,—nor separately both, as some others absurdly teach. But, whatever may be the difference or the coincidence between English verse and Greek or Latin, it is certain, that, in our poetic division of syllables, strength and length must always concur, and any scheme which so contrasts accent with long quantity, as to confound the different species of feet, or give contradictory names to the same foot, must be radically and grossly defective. In the preceding section it has been shown, that the principles of quantity adopted by Sheridan, Murray, and others, being so erroneous as to be wholly nugatory, were as unfit to be the basis of English verse, as are Walker's, which have just been spoken of. But, the puzzled authors, instead of reforming these their elementary principles, so as to adapt them to the quantities and rhythms actually found in our English verse, have all chosen to assume, that our poetical feet in general differ radically from those which the ancients called by the same names; and yet the coincidence found—the "exact sameness of nature" acknowledged—is sagely said by some of them to duplicate each foot into two distinct sorts for our especial advantage; while the difference, which they presume to exist, or which their false principles of accent and quantity would create, between feet quantitative and feet accentual, (both of which are allowed to us,) would implicate different names, and convert foot into foot—iambs, trochees, spondees, pyrrhics, each species into some other—till all were confusion!

OBS. 5.—In Lindley Murray's revised scheme of feet, we have first a paragraph from Sheridan's Rhetorical Grammar, suggesting that the ancient poetic measures were formed of syllables divided "into long and short," and affirming, what is not very true, that, for the forming of ours, "In English, syllables are divided into accented and unaccented."—Rhet. Gram., p. 64; Murray's Gram., 8vo, 253; Hart's Gram., 182; and others. Now some syllables are accented, and others are unaccented; but syllables singly significant, i.e., monosyllables, which are very numerous, belong to neither of these classes. The contrast is also comparatively new; our language had much good poetry, long before accented and unaccented were ever thus misapplied in it. Murray proceeds thus: "When the feet are formed by accent on vowels, they are exactly of the same nature as ancient feet, and have the same just quantity in their syllables. So that, in this respect, we have all that the ancients had, and something which they had not. We have in fact duplicates of each foot, yet with such a difference, as to fit them for different purposes, to be applied at our pleasure."—Ib., p. 253. Again: "We have observed, that English verse is composed of feet formed by accent; and that when the accent falls on vowels, the feet are equivalent to those formed by quantity."—Ib., p. 258. And again: "From the preceding view of English versification, we may see what a copious stock of materials it possesses. For we are not only allowed the use of all the ancient poetic feet, in our heroic measure, but we have, as before observed, duplicates of each, agreeing in movement, though differing in measure,[501] and which make different impressions on the ear; an opulence peculiar to our language, and which may be the source of a boundless variety."—Ib., p. 259.

OBS. 6.—If it were not dullness to overlook the many errors and inconsistencies of this scheme, there should be thought a rare ingenuity in thus turning them all to the great advantage and peculiar